ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

264/- business income 2. Disallowance of Capital loss on transfer Rs. 40,60,000/- 73 of shares of PDK Shenaj Hotels Pvt. Ltd 3. Disallowance of all Expenses debited to Rs. 86,04,017/- 58 profit and loss account 4. Disallowance of Donation paid u/s 80G Rs. 3,00,000/- 73 3 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

capital asset and, therefore, no profits or gains is chargeable to tax under section 45 (4). 20. So far as the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.4 are concerned wherein the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to enhance the income by Rs.13,04,50,800/-, he submitted that the CIT(A) has no power to enhance

MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

capital asset and, therefore, no profits or gains is chargeable to tax under section 45 (4). 20. So far as the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.4 are concerned wherein the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to enhance the income by Rs.13,04,50,800/-, he submitted that the CIT(A) has no power to enhance

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain account on which tax is\npaid during assessment year 2018-19 claimed by the assessee on purchase of land\ndoes not fall within the ambit of section 54B of the Act ignoring the basic facts\nof the case. Ld. CIT(A) wrongly held that no evidence of film shooting etc. by\nLd. AO was collected. The Inspector

ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. LOKVIR KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56 (2) (Vii) of the act. Consequently, he confirmed denial of benefit u/s 54F of The Act. 7. Coming to the 1st issue of computation of capital gain in respect of residential property sold by the assessee, facts shows that assessee declared a long-term capital gain of INR 30762604/– on sale of residential property 264

LOKVIR KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56 (2) (Vii) of the act. Consequently, he confirmed denial of benefit u/s 54F of The Act. 7. Coming to the 1st issue of computation of capital gain in respect of residential property sold by the assessee, facts shows that assessee declared a long-term capital gain of INR 30762604/– on sale of residential property 264

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 of the Act, the assessment can be reopened after four years in case of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act when there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the particulars of income. 26. On perusal of the computation of assessable income for the AY 2009-10 placed

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 of the Act, the assessment can be reopened after four years in case of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act when there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the particulars of income. 26. On perusal of the computation of assessable income for the AY 2009-10 placed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 of the Act, the assessment can be reopened after four years in case of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act when there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the particulars of income. 26. On perusal of the computation of assessable income for the AY 2009-10 placed

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

capital gains u/s. 48. 14.11 The Bombay High Court also rejected the Commissioner's argument that the assessee's returned income could not be reduced by filing a revision petition u/s. 264. According to the High Court, section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

section 111A of the Act. The appellant has claimed that he has held the said shares as investment. The appellant has claimed that whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of stock-in-trade is a matter which is within the knowledge of the person who holds the same. The appellant has claimed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

264/-) 4. That the learned AO/DRP has included amount of Rs. 24,86,030/- twice both in capital gain calculation and also as income from other sources. Inspite of Hon’ble DRP direction to record reason on the alleged treatment of impugned amount, no justification has been given in assessment order dated 26.06.2022 u/s 143(3) read with section

SUNITA KHEMKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

section 10(38). During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.46,63,728/- on sale of shares of following companies. 3 ITA.No.389/Del./2018 Smt. Sunita Khemka, New Delhi. Name of the Sale Price Purchase Transfer Exempt U/s. Company Price Expenses 10(38). HPC Biosciences

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain and disallowance deleted by the ld CIT A. 11. The revenue is challenging the order of the learned commissioner of income tax appeals, which deleted the addition of ₹ 1.75 crores on account of trademark, ₹ 25 lakhs on account of sale of know-how, of ₹ 75 lakhs on account of product information and deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 1.85 lakhs

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the\nterm "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee,\nwhether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include\nany stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards\nshares and other securities, the same can be held either

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIVYA SHAKTI TRADING SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

264 of the I.T. Act before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi -IV, New Delhi on 19th March, 2010 by submitting that “During the relevant previous year the assessee company made transaction for purchase and sale of isolated scrip of GIICL. The income arising out of the above has been mistakenly treated as business income instead of capital gains